linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kobject: Don't trigger kobject_uevent(KOBJ

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <853954ab-b457-6e65-0c17-4693c899cf37@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
Date:   Wed, 27 Feb 2019 19:21:32 +0900
From:   Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Kay Sievers <kay@...y.org>
Cc:     Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        syzbot <syzbot+f648cfb7e0b52bf7ae32@...kaller.appspotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kobject: Don't trigger kobject_uevent(KOBJ_REMOVE) twice.

On 2019/02/21 21:31, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> On 2019/02/21 20:09, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>>> This is the correct fix (in spirit, we may argue about whether it is
>>>> valid to call the flag "state_add_uevent_sent" now or we should or
>>>> collapse both it and "state_add_uevent_sent" into
>>>> "need_send_remove_uevent"). Other subsystems are in their own right to
>>>> not expect to get uvent callbacks past the point of calling
>>>> device_del() as they are tearing down parts of the device environment
>>>> (even though the device structure may stay in memory for a while).
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Which subsystems benefit from commit 0f4dafc0563c6c49 ("Kobject: auto-cleanup
>>> on final unref") ? If there is no such subsystem, it will be better to remove
>>> state_add_uevent_sent and state_remove_uevent_sent logic.
>>
>> You are asking me about a patch from 2007.  I have no idea, try removing
>> it and see what happens :)
> 
> Waiting for response from Kay Sievers who wrote that patch. ;-)
> 

No response from Kay Sievers...

Well, can we apply this patch for now because making sure that
"state_remove_uevent_sent won't be attempted twice" should be safer for
stable kernels than "removing the state_{add,remove}_uevent_sent logic" ?